Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Eur Respir J ; 55(5)2020 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32217650

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is evolving rapidly worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of serious adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 by stratifying the comorbidity status. METHODS: We analysed data from 1590 laboratory confirmed hospitalised patients from 575 hospitals in 31 provinces/autonomous regions/provincial municipalities across mainland China between 11 December 2019 and 31 January 2020. We analysed the composite end-points, which consisted of admission to an intensive care unit, invasive ventilation or death. The risk of reaching the composite end-points was compared according to the presence and number of comorbidities. RESULTS: The mean age was 48.9 years and 686 (42.7%) patients were female. Severe cases accounted for 16.0% of the study population. 131 (8.2%) patients reached the composite end-points. 399 (25.1%) reported having at least one comorbidity. The most prevalent comorbidity was hypertension (16.9%), followed by diabetes (8.2%). 130 (8.2%) patients reported having two or more comorbidities. After adjusting for age and smoking status, COPD (HR (95% CI) 2.681 (1.424-5.048)), diabetes (1.59 (1.03-2.45)), hypertension (1.58 (1.07-2.32)) and malignancy (3.50 (1.60-7.64)) were risk factors of reaching the composite end-points. The hazard ratio (95% CI) was 1.79 (1.16-2.77) among patients with at least one comorbidity and 2.59 (1.61-4.17) among patients with two or more comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Among laboratory confirmed cases of COVID-19, patients with any comorbidity yielded poorer clinical outcomes than those without. A greater number of comorbidities also correlated with poorer clinical outcomes.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Adulto , COVID-19 , China/epidemiologia , Comorbidade , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/diagnóstico , Prognóstico , Fatores de Risco , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Eur Respir J ; 55(6)2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32269086

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: During the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), consistent and considerable differences in disease severity and mortality rate of patients treated in Hubei province compared to those in other parts of China have been observed. We sought to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients being treated inside and outside Hubei province, and explore the factors underlying these differences. METHODS: Collaborating with the National Health Commission, we established a retrospective cohort to study hospitalised COVID-19 cases in China. Clinical characteristics, the rate of severe events and deaths, and the time to critical illness (invasive ventilation or intensive care unit admission or death) were compared between patients within and outside Hubei. The impact of Wuhan-related exposure (a presumed key factor that drove the severe situation in Hubei, as Wuhan is the epicentre as well the administrative centre of Hubei province) and the duration between symptom onset and admission on prognosis were also determined. RESULTS: At the data cut-off (31 January 2020), 1590 cases from 575 hospitals in 31 provincial administrative regions were collected (core cohort). The overall rate of severe cases and mortality was 16.0% and 3.2%, respectively. Patients in Hubei (predominantly with Wuhan-related exposure, 597 (92.3%) out of 647) were older (mean age 49.7 versus 44.9 years), had more cases with comorbidity (32.9% versus 19.7%), higher symptomatic burden, abnormal radiologic manifestations and, especially, a longer waiting time between symptom onset and admission (5.7 versus 4.5 days) compared with patients outside Hubei. Patients in Hubei (severe event rate 23.0% versus 11.1%, death rate 7.3% versus 0.3%, HR (95% CI) for critical illness 1.59 (1.05-2.41)) have a poorer prognosis compared with patients outside Hubei after adjusting for age and comorbidity. However, among patients outside Hubei, the duration from symptom onset to hospitalisation (mean 4.4 versus 4.7 days) and prognosis (HR (95%) 0.84 (0.40-1.80)) were similar between patients with or without Wuhan-related exposure. In the overall population, the waiting time, but neither treated in Hubei nor Wuhan-related exposure, remained an independent prognostic factor (HR (95%) 1.05 (1.01-1.08)). CONCLUSION: There were more severe cases and poorer outcomes for COVID-19 patients treated in Hubei, which might be attributed to the prolonged duration of symptom onset to hospitalisation in the epicentre. Future studies to determine the reason for delaying hospitalisation are warranted.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Hospitalização , Pneumonia Viral/mortalidade , Adulto , Idoso , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Doenças Cardiovasculares/epidemiologia , China , Estudos de Coortes , Comorbidade , Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico por imagem , Tosse/etiologia , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiologia , Surtos de Doenças , Dispneia/etiologia , Fadiga/etiologia , Feminino , Febre/etiologia , Geografia , Humanos , Hipertensão/epidemiologia , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/estatística & dados numéricos , Pulmão/diagnóstico por imagem , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Faringite/etiologia , Pneumonia Viral/complicações , Pneumonia Viral/diagnóstico por imagem , Prognóstico , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Respiração Artificial/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Fatores de Tempo , Tempo para o Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X
3.
Clin Respir J ; 15(9): 983-991, 2021 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34075702

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: After the low quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for respiratory diseases published from 1979 to 2013 was reported, some handbooks were published to standardize guidelines' development recently. There was a great increase in the production and dissemination of CPGs annually in China, whose quality and potential impact were unknown. METHODS: A systematic search of four literature databases was performed for the period January 2013 to December 2018 to identify Chinese CPGs for respiratory diseases. Eligible CPGs were evaluated using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. RESULTS: A total of 197 CPGs were identified for review. Compared with the result of previous study, the increased scores of the six AGREE II domains were screened: Scope and purpose (57.3% vs. 57.8%), Stakeholder involvement (17.6% vs. 25.0%), Rigor of development (10.2% vs. 13.2%), Clarity and presentation (55.2% vs. 58.4%), Applicability (9.3% vs. 25.9%), and Editorial independence (1.1% vs. 6.3%). The improved overall assessment for included CPGs were: Recommended (4, 2.0% vs. 0, 0%) and Recommended with modifications (26, 13.2% vs. 3, 2.8%). The improved level of evidence used to make recommendations were 59, 11.9% versus 168, 22.4% and 88, 17.7% versus 195, 26.0%, A and B, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of CPGs for respiratory diseases published from 2013 to 2018 in China was slightly improved, but had a big gap with the optimum level, especially in Rigor of development and Editorial independence. Increased efforts are required to enable the development of high-quality evidence-based CPGs for respiratory diseases.


Assuntos
Bases de Dados Factuais , China/epidemiologia , Humanos , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto
4.
Ann Transl Med ; 9(11): 941, 2021 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34350256

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients by stratifying by the time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis status is still uncertain. METHODS: We included 1,590 hospitalized COVID-19 patients confirmed by real-time RT-PCR assay or high-throughput sequencing of pharyngeal and nasal swab specimens from 575 hospitals across China between 11 December 2019 and 31 January 2020. Times from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis, from symptom onset to first medical visit and from first medical visit to confirmed diagnosis were described and turned into binary variables by the maximally selected rank statistics method. Then, survival analysis, including a log-rank test, Cox regression, and conditional inference tree (CTREE) was conducted, regarding whether patients progressed to a severe disease level during the observational period (assessed as severe pneumonia according to the Chinese Expert Consensus on Clinical Practice for Emergency Severe Pneumonia, admission to an intensive care unit, administration of invasive ventilation, or death) as the prognosis outcome, the dependent variable. Independent factors included whether the time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis was longer than 5 days (the exposure) and other demographic and clinical factors as multivariate adjustments. The clinical characteristics of the patients with different times from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis were also compared. RESULTS: The medians of the times from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis, from symptom onset to first medical visit, and from first medical visit to confirmed diagnosis were 6, 3, and 2 days. After adjusting for age, sex, smoking status, and comorbidity status, age [hazard ratio (HR): 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01-1.04], comorbidity (HR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.23-2.73), and a duration from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis of >5 days (HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.10-2.60) were independent predictors of COVID-19 prognosis, which echoed the CTREE models, with significant nodes such as time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis, age, and comorbidities. Males, older patients with symptoms such as dry cough/productive cough/shortness of breath, and prior COPD were observed more often in the patients who procrastinated before initiating the first medical consultation. CONCLUSIONS: A longer time from symptom onset to confirmed diagnosis yielded a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

5.
Oncotarget ; 8(39): 66438-66448, 2017 Sep 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29029525

RESUMO

Air pollutant levels in many Chinese cities remained significantly higher than the upper limits stated in World Health Organization guidelines. In light of limited evidence in China, we conducted a meta-analysis summarizing the association between acute exposure of air pollution and cardiovascular mortality. We searched PubMed, and CNKI databases etc. for literature published in English or Chinese up to January 2017. Outcomes were pooled and compared using random-effects model. Excess risks (ERs) per 10 µg/m3 increase in PM2.5, PM10, NO2, SO2 and O3 were evaluated. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to lag patterns (lags 0, 1, 2, 0-1, 0-2 days), gender (male vs. female), temperature (cool vs. warm) and age (< 65 vs. ≥ 65). Study bias was detected using Begg's and Egger's test. Of 299 articles identified, 30 met inclusion criteria. Each 10 µg/m3 increase in the concentration was associated with a higher incidence of cardiovascular mortality for PM2.5 (0.68%, 95% CI: 0.39-0.97%), PM10 (0.39%, 95% CI: 0.26-0.53%), NO2 (1.12%, 95% CI: 0.76-1.48%), SO2 (0.75%, 95% CI: 0.42-1.09%), and O3 (0.62%, 95% CI: 0.33-0.92%), respectively. Air pollution conferred greater adverse impacts on cardiovascular mortality for longer duration of exposures. Strongest associations were seen for lag 0-1 day of exposure among all pollutants. Female, lower temperature, and age > 65 years were associated with greater risks of cardiovascular mortality for all pollutants. Higher concentrations of air pollutants correlated with a greater short-term increase in cardiovascular mortality. Further high-quality studies in China are urgently warranted to determine the susceptible population, which would offer reference for policy-making to minimize adverse health effects.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA